Numeracy, Financial Literacy, and Financial Decision-Making

seriousDFW

jem16 wrote: »

What kind of specialist maths knowledge would you feel is necessary for primary?

A deep, conceptual understanding of mathematical ideas so that pupils learn in such a way that builds a solid foundation for later study. A thorough knowledge of KS3 & 4 curriculum for the same reason.

Perhaps curriculum changes at primary level would have more of an impact.

oldvicar

If teaching maths at school is the issue, then its probably knowledge and skill at teaching (any subject) rather than specialist subject (maths) knowledge which matters.

I'd argue that the above applies at any level, including Primary, but I can best illustrate the point from my A-level experience. I did 'double' maths A-levels: Maths (1 A-level) and Further Maths (another), each covering topics in Pure Maths, and Applied Maths. The way my school organised the teaching for those studying 2 maths A-levels was that for one year group the Head of the Mathematics department taught all the pure maths, and the Deputy Head taught all the applied maths. Then for another year group they swapped subjects, with the Head teaching applied, and the Deputy Head teaching pure maths.

Both teachers understood their subjects and the curriculum very well. But teaching styles were quite different. Whichever subject area they taught the results were the same:

Head of Maths: 100s of pages of notes taken in class. Masses of homework given and attempted (we were hardworking and did our best). Subject matter considered complicated by students, with some left completely flummoxed and left behind. Examination results ranging from poor to dire.

Deputy Head of Maths: About 10 to 15 pages of notes in total taken by the end of 2 years of study. No homework as such, all 'homework' done in class with support from teacher available but rarely needed. Subject matter seemed easy, and examination results were good to excellent.

This was proven repeatedly year after year. The difference in achievment was definitely down to general teaching skills and not subject knowledge. There was absolutley no doubt, at least in my mind, that the Head of Mathematics could do the math, he was just hopeless at teaching it.

Mandelbrot

jem16 wrote: »

there are areas in Primary that would benefit from specialist teachers but Maths isn't one of them. In one Primary class you will have 3 Maths groups which sometimes have a range over 2 years. Would a specialist Maths teacher cope with that ability range?

Yes.
A specialist maths teacher would have the necessary understanding to be able to approach the fundamentals from a whole series of different directions. This is what is needed since children don't all pick up mathematical concepts the same way.

An ability range is obviously not related to age. Mathematical abilty is (in my view) inate. But basic understanding of the fundamentals is certainly possible for the majority.

You need to make the learning of mathematical concepts something that is seen as useful (for whatever the children find useful) and at primary school level it can be made fun too - which helps.

For most pupils, having a specialist maths teacher at primary level would be more beneficial that a maths teacher at secondary level.

Mandelbrot

oldvicar,
I think that we are comparing apples and oranges here.
You are referring to the teaching of students who have chosen to study mathematics at A-level.
Such students undoubtedly have a large measure of basic mathematical ability, or they wouldn't have got to that level.
This thread is essentially about the substantial number of students who are leaving education barely able to multiply, divide, and work out simple percentages.

Mandelbrot

cepheus wrote: »

Compound interest? Half of adults are not even nearly at that level. See this thread and prepare to be really shocked!

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article-2108989/Nation-maths-dunces-17-million-adults-fail-tests-set-primary-schoolchildren.html#ixzz1nwyQAeDv

I'd be interested to know how many people did question 7 using very simple addition/subtraction (in their head), rather than summing the lot and dividing by 9.
It's techniques like that that a specialist maths teacher could get across in primary school - kids like 'tricks'.

oldvicar

Mandelbrot wrote: »

I'd be interested to know how many people did question 7 using very simple addition/subtraction (in their head), rather than summing the lot and dividing by 9.
It's techniques like that that a specialist maths teacher could get across in primary school - kids like 'tricks'.

No addition, subtraction, summing or dividing needed at all for Question 7.
Could it be (a) 5 - no, all the numbers except the first are bigger. 5 is the smallest number.
Could it be (b) 9 - possibly, some numbers are more, some less
Could it be (c) 12 - no, all the numbers except one are bigger. 12 is the biggest number.
Could it be (d) 81. Don't be ridiculous ! This happens to be the sum of the numbers.

The question does not require any numerical manipulation. It merely (!) requires an understanding of what average (mean) means, and be able to pick the most likely answer from answers which are in fact the min, max, mean, and total.

Question 4 is the interesting one. Is this a test for dyslexia (or whatever the proper name for not being able to read numbers properly is) ?

Mandelbrot

oldvicar wrote: »

No addition, subtraction, summing or dividing needed at all for Question 7.
Could it be (a) 5 - no, all the numbers except the first are bigger. 5 is the smallest number.
Could it be (b) 9 - possibly, some numbers are more, some less
Could it be (c) 12 - no, all the numbers except one are bigger. 12 is the biggest number.
Could it be (d) 81. Don't be ridiculous ! This happens to be the sum of the numbers.

The question does not require any numerical manipulation. It merely (!) requires an understanding of what average (mean) means, and be able to pick the most likely answer from answers which are in fact the min, max, mean, and total.

Agreed in this case - since they give you a choice of answers (an increasing and possibly unwelcome development, since it leads to guessing). And as you say, of the choices available, only one makes any sense.
One wonders why they felt the need to go for a multiple-choice setup (reminiscent of 'Who wants to be a millionaire' & other quiz shows).
Perhaps if they hadn't, too many people would have simply said "I don't know".
This way, the interviewees could simply guess an answer, and the pollsters would get their statistics.
(I had been referring to a method that doesn't rely on suggested answers.)

Question 4 is the interesting one. Is this a test for dyslexia (or whatever the proper name for not being able to read numbers properly is) ?

It would appear so. I couldn't think of any other reason.
Being able to recall such digit-strings (phone numbers, reference numbers, etc) is something that is quite important nowadays, and if you have problems in that area it could impinge on your mathematics, but it did seem a slightly odd question.

gadgetmind

lvader wrote: »

I don't think is cleaver or particulary useful to learn stuff that can be more easily done with a tool.

First you learn how to do it by hand, then you learn about the tools that can help you perform the task. Whether it's clever or not, I don't really care, but it is essential.

gadgetmind

oldvicar wrote: »

whatever the proper name for not being able to read numbers properly is) ?

The official name for that is "sun reader".

(OK, so it's actually "discalculia".)

Mandelbrot

gadgetmind wrote: »

(OK, so it's actually "discalculia".)

I think dyscalculia is a term for wider mathematical problems.
Dysnumia has sometimes been used to indicate a difficulty in remembering numbers, but it is perhaps too easily confused with dysnomia - the difficulty in recalling names and other words.